patrick.net

anon_e7f7d says

i forget who said it but may favorite quote about religion is that it serves as an opiate for the masses

Karl Marx

WildMind says

The driving factor in these fear based religions is it is as simplistic for most people as believing in Santa Clause for kids. I might not really believe everything in the Bible is true, but eternal damnation isn’t worth risking by choosing not to believe. By including the threat of burning in agony over hellfire and feeling inescapable pain for eternity... as a threat for not being faithful... it kind of takes any virtue away from those that choose to be faithful. It’s a terroristic threat brainwashed into children from childhood... Im not a churchgoer myself anymore,but I was raised Protestant and was confirmed and baptized and all that hoopla. Still, if I’m on a turbulent airplane I quietly recite the Lord’s Prayer in my head... not because I beleive necessarily, but I’m hedging my bets in such a situation of helplessness that getting “saved” last minute is better then eternal hell.

It seems as though there is a misunderstanding of God. He is not necessarily what religion or religious people tell you He is. Let Him speak for Himself. Read the Bible. You shall seek Him and find Him when you search with all your heart.

anon_e96ec says

Read the Bible.

Why not Bhagavad Gita, Avesta (which is what Bible originated from), or Tripitaka, and which one should be considered the ultimate truth and why.

Good points. The hellfire sermons of early America still resonate in many protestant churches today. Unfortunately, people who believe that, or worse, push that belief, are attempting to put believers back under the law. But Paul states we are no longer under the law, but under grace. For this reason Jesus abhorred the religious leaders of his time, who sought to burden the people with untenable precepts that no one could ever live up to.

God made this a world of choice. He wants you to choose to have a relationship with Him, and Jesus provided the entry point to that relationship by bridging the gap sin put between us and God. If you choose to accept this gift of renewed relationship, you'll get far more than heaven. You'll get God. And that's worth way more than any fire insurance.

Heaven and hell = you self regulate

Government = no morals, if you benefit all else be damned.

FortWayne says

Government = no morals, if you benefit all else be damned.

"if you benefit all else be damned"
Isn't that the definition of corporations?

That is why leaders are meant to be moral men. It’s in Jefferson letters. :)

Heraclitusstudent says

FortWayne says

Government = no morals, if you benefit all else be damned.

"if you benefit all else be damned"
Isn't that the definition of corporations?

Heraclitusstudent says

Not only that but if you don't choose the right religion, BAM! to hell!

Given that there are only a few dozen of us that still worship Mithras, the one true God, Hell is EXTREMELY busy. Enjoy the burning or freezing, as appropriate based on your false god.

I read quite a bit about religion a few years ago and concluded that they are not even all the same kind of thing. To put them all into one category is misleading.

* Christianity stresses faith and claims to be the only true path to heaven.

* Judaism is more like a nationality than a faith. You don't have to believe anything to be a good Jew, you just have to follow the rules. Heaven and hell are not that significant and were not even part of the religion originally.

* Buddhism is just a philosophy for how to deal with life. In its original form, it does not deal with the supernatural but is just a recipe for ending suffering and finding peace.

* Hinduism is so far out there with blue gods, elephant headed gods, etc that I think their holy men must be stoned all the time. Which may in fact be the case.

A lot of people in the Western world think that all religions are analogous to Christianity. But that would be incorrect.

I finished Jordan Peterson’s new book “12 Rules for Life: an Antidote to Chaos” last week. In addition to a wide range of subjects from evolutional biology to psychology, he parses a different sort of truth from the holy texts of several major religions, arriving at a more unified theory of “the way(Tao possibly)” than I’ve ever seen.
It’s definitely worth a read or listen, and I’m actually planning to read it again soon. The concepts are very empowering. Peterson is an agnostic, but includes more religious ideas in his book than I would ever have suspected, and then ties them to deeper meanings encoded in our DNA. It’s quite fascinating!

Quigley says

The concepts are very empowering. Peterson is an agnostic, but includes more religious ideas in his book than I would ever have suspected, and then ties them to deeper meanings encoded in our DNA. It’s quite fascinating!

What does it mean "includes more religious ideas in his book than I would ever have suspected"?
Peterson is a clinical psychologist. If you follow him admitting he's talking about psychology, then you recognize that these are not religious ideas, but ideas about psychology.

Jungian archetypes are not a new idea. They were already popularized by people like Joseph Campbell. I haven't read Peterson but I don't know what he can add to that.

Patrick says

* Buddhism is just a philosophy for how to deal with life. In its original form, it does not deal with the supernatural but is just a recipe for ending suffering and finding peace.

Buddhism is really wide ranging. It encapsulates everything from a belief that literal demons and angels can hijack or help your Enlightenment (Tibetan), to "California (aka Golden Mountain) Zen" which is just about "Mindfulness" to something in between like Confusian-Buddhism or Buddhism-Local Gods.

Patrick says

Buddhism is just a philosophy for how to deal with life.

All religions, and myths in general, are about psychological patterns encountered through life.

I find it ironic when there are those who follow a religion, not realizing it yet feel free criticize establishment religions (not that those classical religions are unworthy of criticism). All "religions" in my eyes are mere trickery out of motivation to exert control over another.
BTW I also agree that there is a distinction between philosophy (e.g. Buddhism) and religion. The cutoff is difficult to discern, more-so without proper definition. For me that distinction is that, for religion, it has "blind faith in the face of contrary evidence" whereas philosophy at least acknowledges contrary evidence as valid, even sound, but one's final position is chosen as based on an overall assessment. Maybe one of you brainy posters on here can phrase the distinction between religion vs philosophy better... mine struggles with potential for circular logic.

Jung... yes he mentions Jung a lot. I think with the religious ideas he’s relating them to deep psychological drives that exist in all of us, yet pop out in religion as allegory, possibly because we can understand story better than lecture, or possibly because we only imperfectly grasp the concepts that our subconscious minds already know.

My understanding is yet imperfect. That’s why I want to read it again.

Quigley says

pop out in religion as allegory, possibly because we can understand story better than lecture

That's one of Campbell's point: Religion is talking of things that cannot be communicated easily through words. Therefore it works by telling stories, putting you in the shoes of the people having a given experience. But the story is just a metaphor for the real point which is psychology.
This is the only way religion ever makes sense: it never makes claims about anything in the physical world. Just our experience living in this world.

HEYYOU says

Anyone ever read or watch Joseph Campbell's, "The Power of Myth"
Translation of the dead sea scrolls? Bhagavad Gita? The list is much longer.
In my readings I failed to find anything other than opinion,

Just one example that is a common theme: duality.
Zen Buddhism, Taoism, Genesis in the bible, Islam (oneness of God) all oppose dualism (as did Heraclitus).

Buddhism teaches some forms of mindfulness where you can detach you consciousness as a pure observer from your identity as a person in life.
So you have these 2 levels: life bound to incessant give and take, cycles of causes-effects, and suffering as a result, and pure consciousness, where you can see the unity of things and cannot be affected by it.

Now Genesis says in paradise man is the same as God, there is no male or female (or they don't care about the difference), etc... then we get the knowledge of good and evil and BAM we fall into a world of polar opposites: good vs evil, light vs darkness, gain-loss, start-end, male-female, life-death, etc.... The cycles of cause and effect, aka the wheel of fortune. And of course the solution is to place yourself back at the level where you see the unity of all things as taught by Buddhism.

You can describe this in religious and abstract terms, but the "wheel of fortune", the suffering and the verifiable relief, all these are purely empirical observations about the nature of the world and that one corner of the human psyche.

I think you’d really like Peterson’s book then. He talks about all of that, with a special focus on Genesis 2-3, duality, Taoism, and evolutionary psychology.

Heraclitusstudent says

Now Genesis says in paradise man is the same as God, there is no male or female (or they don't care about the difference), etc... then we get the knowledge of good and evil and BAM we fall into a world of polar opposites: good vs evil, light vs darkness, gain-loss, start-end, male-female, life-death, etc....

None of that's in Genesis. It's very clear that God is the creator, not anywhere close to on par with man, and that Eve is very much not the same as Adam.

Good and evil do not exist because we learn of them, they exist because God allowed them, through choice. The choice to disobey God's command not to eat the fruit and sin is what changes things, not knowledge. This is such a post-modern mindset. What's broken is the relationship with God, the solution was Christ's sacrifice to allow for restoration of the relationship, if we choose to accept it.

NuttBoxer says

None of that's in Genesis. It's very clear that God is the creator, not anywhere close to on par with man, and that Eve is very much not the same as Adam.

God created man in his image.
Adam and Eve were going naked and didn't care, whereas after being kicked out, they are ashamed.
They ate from which tree? The tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Curious name for a tree, is it not?
I'm not saying that good and evil do not exist. They exist for us as part of life. They do not exist from the perspective of a neutral observer that has sufficient stand back.
Heraclitus said something like: "Humans think this is fair, and that is unfair. But to God, all things are good and fair and beautiful."

Peterson uses the tree of knowledge as a tipping point of consciousness. Before then, they weren’t aware of their nakedness, because they weren’t aware of their mortality. After, with knowledge of just how soft and vulnerable everything was below the neck to below the waist, they felt a need to cover and disguise their vulnerability. In all, the story is an allegory or how mankind achieved true consciousness, the ability to know they are vulnerable, and the ability to see into the future and understand that future need would depend on today’s sacrifice of time and effort producing needful things. That’s why we work, because we can see the future and it requires work in the present to avoid hardship.
Knowledge of good and evil... to understand this you have to define evil and Peterson defines it as the conscious and knowing infliction of suffering on other human beings. Knowing our own vulnerability, we can now exploit that knowledge to intentionally hurt other people. This is evil. Helping and caring for others is then good. Before consciousness, Adam and Eve couldn’t know the difference, as any harm they’d do each other was unintentional or arising out of their instincts. After, they could hurt each other in new and inventive ways, using the knowledge they now possessed.
Knowledge is power, and with power comes responsibility. God tells them that he will have to work, and it will be hard. Eve will have to bear children and that will also be hard and painful. She will also (due to having to bear children and care for them and this taking so much time and energy) have to suborn herself to the man and be in his power. This is her sacrifice to the realities of her condition.

If you think of the story as an allegory of consciousness arising, it makes perfect sense.

NuttBoxer says

Good and evil do not exist because we learn of them, they exist because God allowed them, through choice. The choice to disobey God's command not to eat the fruit and sin is what changes things, not knowledge. This is such a post-modern mindset. What's broken is the relationship with God, the solution was Christ's sacrifice to allow for restoration of the relationship, if we choose to accept it.

So God was willing to send his son to die for the billion starving kids on the planet, but he is not willing to feed them.
God must need a shrink.

Quigley says

Peterson uses the tree of knowledge as a tipping point of consciousness. Before then, they weren’t aware of their nakedness, because they weren’t aware of their mortality.

This is where I don't think I would like reading Peterson. He's lost in abstract zone of psychology.

To me what matters are not the symbols and their psychological imports, but the extremely practical lesson in the nature of the world in which we live: the endless cycle of life and death, the cycle of life feeding on life, nations that rise and fall, the cycle of violence whereby victims becoming the monsters, people who succeed then fail, win then lose, etc.... This is duality. This is the "suffering" of Buddhism. This is what human think is fair or unfair. And it should not be rejected but embraced.

The lesson of "paradise", or nirvana, is that there is a center of the wheel, a walled garden, a point of stillness and timelessness inside us, where we can be outside of this duality, and this suffering. Again this is a purely practical and verifiable claim.

You can see traces of this in a book like Genesis - that if otherwise taken literally would be a story for children, a story that could only pass for knowledge 3000 yrs ago in the bronze age.

Patrick says

* Buddhism is just a philosophy for how to deal with life. In its original form, it does not deal with the supernatural but is just a recipe for ending suffering and finding peace.

Buddhism is just a cleaner more simpler form of Hinduism :-) It started out as a reform movement within Hinduism and a lot of this reform movement was assimilated back into Hinduism.

Patrick says

* Hinduism is so far out there with blue gods, elephant headed gods, etc that I think their holy men must be stoned all the time. Which may in fact be the case.

While some Buddhists will raise their eyebrows if one were to claim that Buddha is incarnation of Vishnu (Hindu god with multiple hands who rides on a multi-headed snake in the middle of the ocean) saying that Hinduism and Buddhism are completely different is denying the obvious truth :-)

Heraclitusstudent says

God created man in his image.

I hate abuse of English. Same and image are two different words, with very different meanings.

Heraclitusstudent says

Adam and Eve were going naked and didn't care, whereas after being kicked out, they are ashamed.

Again, words matter. Having no shame does not mean they don't understand the difference between men and women.

Heraclitusstudent says

"Humans think this is fair, and that is unfair. But to God, all things are good and fair and beautiful."

Sounds like you're saying God has no sense of justice. If that were true, Adam and Eve never would have been kicked out of Eden.

Strategist says

So God was willing to send his son to die for the billion starving kids on the planet, but he is not willing to feed them.
God must need a shrink.

Why are they starving? What should God do to feed them? How would this change affect the ability to choose, and the responsibility of that goes with it?

Feux Follets says

Who is God? What’s He or She like? What are His beliefs, what are His motives, what’s His agenda? Who is He to you?

He answered all these questions with the incarnation of His Son Jesus Christ when he dwelt among mortal men as One of them and yet was without sin. All one has to do is look to Jesus's example to know what God is like.

NuttBoxer says

words matter

Taken literally, this is a story for children. The kind of myth that passed for knowledge in the bronze age, 3000 yrs ago.

I'm trying to point at pearls in the rubble, but even that is unnecessary. All you need is to observe the world and learn.

NuttBoxer says

Sounds like you're saying God has no sense of justice. If that were true, Adam and Eve never would have been kicked out of Eden.

No: YOU believe that God has no sense of justice. Otherwise humans now would not pay for the sins of their ancestors. Otherwise their wouldn't be children dying of starvation, or curable disease, under the all seeing eye of an omnipotent and benevolent "creator".

Personally, I don't believe in God to start with, but the wise attitude is not to drone on how unfair life is. This is life: of course shit will happen. This is just the decor, and a good one if we are to realize our potential as human beings.

P N Dr Lo R says

He answered all these questions with the incarnation of His Son Jesus Christ when he dwelt among mortal men as One of them and yet was without sin.

That makes me laugh:
Dozen of incompatible religions all around you.
But you're so dammmn sure you're the lucky sob that happens to have the right one.
Guess what: they're all sure they are too.
And for the exact same reason you do: i.e. they were taught this stuff by their parents.

But you can't take a step back for 1 minute and figure it out?

NuttBoxer says

Strategist says

So God was willing to send his son to die for the billion starving kids on the planet, but he is not willing to feed them.
God must need a shrink.

Why are they starving? What should God do to feed them? How would this change affect the ability to choose, and the responsibility of that goes with it?

They are starving because God did not give them their daily bread, like he gave to you. What a rotten God. I would make a much better God, because I would not torture helpless babies by letting them starve to death. Please vote for me to be the next God.

Heraclitusstudent says

That makes me laugh:

Heraclitusstudent says

But you're so dammmn sure you're the lucky sob that happens to have the right one.

Go ahead and laugh. There were many religions before and after Christ, but only Christ divided history, only He controls the elements and was present at creation. None of the others make that claim because they're mired in human clay.

P N Dr Lo R says

There were many religions before and after Christ, but only Christ divided history, only He controls the elements and was present at creation. None of the others make that claim because they're mired in human clay.

Of course the others make other claims that justifies their beliefs - exactly like your claim here.
You think all others are wrong, exactly like they think you are wrong.
But they are totally sure to be right, exactly like you are.
And yet you think you are so different, exactly like they think they are different.
You don't see a pattern???

Heraclitusstudent says

Of course the others make other claims that justifies their beliefs - exactly like your claim here

And in what way does that invalidate the claims of Christianity, which are unique in human existence and history?

Heraclitusstudent says

they were taught this stuff by their parents.

And thank God for that! That is actually how Christianity is propagated, through children who are reared in the faith. The main reason faith fell out of favor from the late 60's on was because the collapse of the family resulted in millions of people not being raised in a family of faith. It's a fact that a couple with children are more likely to be religiously observant than are single people. That's why I enjoy seeing my cousin's grandson who is now 40 and his wife who live around the corner from me with their three children in church every Sunday. Their daughter is about 12 and the little boys I think are 7 and 10. The ten year was baptized two Sundays ago. I appreciate seeing them being raised the right way and have no doubt they'll be a credit to their parents and grandparents and great grandparents.

P N Dr Lo R says

And thank God for that! That is actually how Christianity is propagated

Yep. It's also how Islam is propagated. And Judaism. And Buddhism.
This is also how the cult of Zeus used to be propagated.

Heraclitusstudent says

Yep. It's also how Islam is propagated. And Judaism. And Buddhism.

The difference is that Christianity is true. Another uniqueness of Christianity that should have been obvious to me but I hadn't thought of it because I just took it for granted is that Christians are the only ones who sing their faith. Where are the beautiful songs of Islam, or Buddhism of Judaism? Where are the lovely celebratory anthems from the most famous song writers of all time celebrating other faiths? What is the equivalent of atheism's Messiah? Where is Islam's Rock of Ages or Amazing Grace? Christians are the only ones who sing their faith because they're the only ones who have something to sing about:
www.youtube.com/embed/mZ_rx9HbCTk

Heraclitusstudent says

Of course the others make other claims that justifies their beliefs - exactly like your claim here.
You think all others are wrong, exactly like they think you are wrong.
But they are totally sure to be right, exactly like you are.
And yet you think you are so different, exactly like they think they are different.
You don't see a pattern???

It's the exact same pattern. Same bull, different shit.

P N Dr Lo R says

Heraclitusstudent says

Yep. It's also how Islam is propagated. And Judaism. And Buddhism.

The difference is that Christianity is true. Another uniqueness of Christianity that should have been obvious to me but I hadn't thought of it because I just took it for granted is that Christians are the only ones who sing their faith. Where are the beautiful songs of Islam, or Buddhism of Judaism? Where are the lovely celebratory anthems from the most famous song writers of all time celebrating other faiths? What is the equivalent of atheism's Messiah? Where is Islam's Rock of Ages or Amazing Grace? Christians are the only ones who

Nice songs does not prove anything.

Yes, lol, their is this lovely place somewhere pretty close to the top of the dirt layer where we all stuck living. But, we don't do some a good job of loving one another or letting kindness win. It's kind of a .. free for all. Remember those old bumper stickers, who dies with the most toys wins, newsflash, y'all gonna die, but some of you are going to live forever, whatever the hell that is.

Love Gregorian chants.